MovieChat Forums > Meet the Feebles (1995) Discussion > Meaning of this movie?

Meaning of this movie?

posted 20 years ago by iEssy
14 replies | jump to latest

I've just been reading through some of these posts regarding this movie and it seems most people only see this movie as a puppets on crack. I think there is more to it than what you people give it credit for.
I'm pretty sure that Peter Jackson had more in mind than puppets with gore, i think more its puppets depicting human society and human nature, but just using puppets.

for Example:
The Fly represented the media, the Fox represented the gay community, the crocodile represented the drug/homeless section of the community, the rabbit was the entertainment industry, the elephant was an everyday commoner (going through divorce, and being a single father), etc etc etc.

Or was i just looking too much into it?

any thoughts anyone?

or has this been discussed elsewhere?

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] gorebagkiller 20 years ago

You just described exactly what the meaning is, a depiction of all the cracks in society rolled together.

[–] Dark_stormrider 20 years ago

The use of puppets (usually cute and innocent) just made it more disturbing.

[–] JohnnyBoosta 19 years ago

Johnny Boosta
The meaning of the movie in my opinion is that its satire on human greed, corruption and bad behavior by using puppets to take on the human characteristics. Also it could be an satire on Hollywood by saying that iosnt perfect and that can be quite sleazy.

[–] mccarthystuart 14 years ago

Does a film always have to hit the audience over the
head with some big moral message?

I'm quite happy to take this film at face value.

So this is how liberty dies-with thunderous applause?

[–] jpssteveshanahan (482) a year ago

This!☝️

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] reekreekitrythmeswithfreak 13 years ago

I don't think this film was attempting to be deep and meaningful. The film is simply taking the piss out of the Muppets by transforming the puppets into the debauched and vile elements that exist in Hollywood, the *beep* under the 'glamour'.

[–] weasel_evil 13 years ago

Wynyard wasn't a crocodile, he was a frog.

[–] VaticanAssassinWarlock 11 years ago

It's a satire, a more 'realistic' depiction of what The Muppet Show would really be like. It says what it says well and to the fullest extent; where something is depraved it wallows in it, where something is violent it basks in it. All of its components have an exaggerated basis in something real. To say there is 'nothing more' would be misleading: its not a shallow or stupid film, it simply does what it does the greatest extent it could be done, with absolute flourish and zeal. Peter Jackson takes the concept of toilet humour and scrawls the Mona Lisa on a public-toilet wall using his own excrement; it is a gallows masterpiece. It is not a morality play or a fable, so reading into it that way is a mistake, rather it should be embraced for what it is, because,whatever it is, to date nobody has done it better.

[–] king_of_bob 9 years ago

There is no "meaning." It's just a spoof of the Muppets. If you think it's deeper than that, you can't be familiar with Peter Jacksons early work. At this point in his career he was just making movies to improve his directing and effects skills. Watch Bad Taste and Braindead\Dead Alive. He was all about blood and gore at this stage.

Everything is very much on the surface in his early work.

The new home of Welcome to Planet Bob: http://kingofbob.blogspot.ca/

[–] Snaggelpuss 8 years ago

Does a movie have to have a meaning get a point across?

It makes quite few points or am I just assuming they are points and not sketch bases? Can be both